Council Regulation (EC) No 1965/98 of 9 September 1998 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polysulphide polymers originating in the United States of America and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
Date: 1998-09-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: United States, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, polymer, synthetic rubber

17. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 255/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1965/98

of 9 September 1998

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polysulphide polymers
originating in the United States of America and collecting definitively the provi-
sional duty imposed

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

— K(cid:148)mmerling Chemische Fabrik GmbH & Co.,

(5)

(6)

(7)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
from countries
the European
not members
Community (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

of

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis-
sion after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

By Regulation (EC) No 617/98 (2)
(hereinafter
referred to as the ‘provisional duty Regulation') the
Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping
duty on imports into the Community of polysul-
phide polymers (hereinafter referred to as ‘PSP')
falling within CN code ex 4002 99 90 and origin-
ating in the United States of America (hereinafter
referred to as ‘USA').

Following the imposition of provisional anti-
dumping measures,
interested parties
submitted comments in writing.

several

The parties who so requested were granted an
opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all
the information it deemed necessary for
the
purpose of its definitive findings. Verification visits
were carried out at the premises of the following
industrial users of PSP:

(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 30. 4. 1998, p. 18).

(2) OJ L 82, 19. 3. 1998, p. 25.

Pirmasens, Germany,

— Chemetall GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

The parties were informed of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was
intended to recommend the imposition of defin-
itive anti-dumping duties and the definitive collec-
tion of amounts secured by way of provisional
duties. They were also granted a period within
which to make representations subsequent to this
disclosure.

The oral and written comments submitted by the
interested parties were considered, and, where
deemed appropriate,
in the
definitive findings.

taken into account

B. PRODUCT

CONCERNED
PRODUCT

AND

LIKE

by

the

that

lodged

The exporting producer in the USA requested that
solid PSP be excluded from the scope of
the
present investigation. In this context it should be
noted
the
complaint
Community industry and the investigation carried
out following this complaint did not distinguish
between liquid and solid PSP, nor did it explicitly
cover solid PSP. Given the significantly bigger
market of
the
liquid PSP and the fact
Community industry produces only liquid PSP, the
investigation carried out was exclusively based on
the situation on the United States of America and
Community market of liquid PSP.

that

The provisional duty Regulation, however, did not
make a distinction between solid and liquid PSP,
and anti-dumping measures were consequently
applicable to all PSP. As the investigation carried

L 255/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 9. 98

out after the imposition of provisional measures
has shown that solid PSP is a different product in
terms of physical and technical characteristics from
liquid PSP as a result of a different molecular struc-
ture and as it was established that solid PSP could
not be converted into liquid PSP, solid PSP is
excluded from the scope of the present invest-
igation.

2. Export price

(11)

In the absence of new arguments
from the
exporting producer concerning the establishment
of the export price, the provisional findings as set
out in recital 15 of the provisional duty Regulation
are confirmed.

As no other argument has been raised on this
subject, the conclusions reached in recital 12 of the
provisional duty Regulation are confirmed.

(12)

C. DUMPING

1. Normal value

3. Comparison

The exporting producer reiterated its request that
its export prices in German marks be adjusted to
take into consideration the currency conversion
factor. This issue was re-examined and since it was
established that a sustained movement of
the
exchange rate of the United States dollar to the
German mark has indeed taken place, in accord-
ance with Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation, an
adjustment for currency conversions was made to
the export price. The adjustment was calculated on
the basis that the exporting producer had 60 days
to reflect
in exchange
rates for the transactions in question.

the sustained movement

(8)

(9)

The exporting producer requested that the normal
value be constructed for all PSP product
types,
since the particular market situation, in accordance
with Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation'),
did not allow for a proper comparison to be made.
this particular situation resulted
It claimed that
from the fact that the product concerned was sold
in a variety of market segments in the USA, such as
construction, insulating glass sealant, aerospace and
automotive, whereas it was predominantly sold in
in the
the
Community. This claim was not accepted since the
fact that domestic and export sales are made into
different market segments does not in itself consti-
tute a particular market situation in the sense of
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

sealant market

insulating

glass

The exporting producer also claimed that
the
particular structure of the United States of America
PSP market should be taken into account in order
to determine the reasonable amount for profit to be
used for the construction of normal value. It was
claimed that this amount should be based only on
this producer’s sales on the insulating glass sealant
market. This claim had to be rejected since,
in
accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic Regula-
tion, the amount for profit should be based on
actual data pertaining to production and sales, in
the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by
the exporting producer under investigation and not
to only a part of the production and sales as the
producer concerned claimed.

(10) As no other new arguments have been presented,
the remaining findings set out in recitals 13 and 14
of the provisional duty Regulation are confirmed.

(13) As no other new arguments concerning the
comparison between export price and normal value
have been brought forward, the remaining findings
set out in recitals 16 and 17 of the provisional duty
Regulation are confirmed.

4. Dumping margin

(14)

(15)

In the absence of new arguments concerning the
determination of the dumping margin, the meth-
odology set out in recitals 19 and 20 of the provi-
sional duty Regulation is confirmed.

The dumping margin definitively established as a
percentage of the cif price at Community frontier
level is as follows:

— Morton International Inc., Chicago: 47,5 %.

As this company is deemed to represent 100 % of
the US production of the product concerned, the
residual dumping margin definitively established is
also set at 47,5 %.

D. INJURY

1. Sales prices in the Community market

(16) With reference to recital 28 of the provisional duty
Regulation, it should be pointed out that, on the
basis of the information available at that time, it
was found, that during the whole period under
examination prices charged by the exporting
producer in the Community market decreased by
4 % on average. However, after the imposition of

17. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 255/3

(17)

provisional anti-dumping measures, the Commis-
sion was able to establish that
the exporting
producer had failed to list all credit notes issued to
Community-based customers and the resulting net
in the detailed transaction listing
sales prices
contained in its reply to the questionnaire. These
credit notes reflected the fact that this producer
granted significant price discounts.

duty Regulation,

Taking into account
the net sales prices after
adjusting for all the credit notes, the evolution of
prices charged by both the Community industry
and the exporting producer
to certain large
Community-based customers within the whole
period under examination indicates that, contrary
to the price evolution described in recital 28 of the
provisional
exporting
producer decreased its prices by more than the
Community industry. The decrease in sales prices
started in 1996 when the exporting producer
lowered its prices by 10 %. In the same year, the
Community industry reduced its prices to the same
customers by 6 %. At the beginning of 1997, the
exporting producer again reduced its prices by a
further 6 %, leading to an overall decrease in sales
price of 16 %.

the

(20)

(21)

(22)

2. Price undercutting

(18) As

a

rule,

the methodology applied by the
Commission when calculating price undercutting
consists in using the exporting producer’s sales
prices charged to the first independent customers
types of
in the Community market, net of all
rebates or discounts.

are

These prices
then compared with the
Community industry’s relevant selling prices, also
net of all types of rebates or discounts. Applying
this rule in the present case and in order to ensure
a reliable undercutting exercise, sales prices of indi-
vidual PSP-product
compared by
Member States and on a customer-by-customer
basis. It follows that in cases where certain PSP-
product types were sold in certain Member States
by the
and not by the
Community producer, or vice versa, actual price
comparison was not possible — nor would it have
been meaningful.

exporting producer

types were

(19) On the basis of the methodology described above,
contrary to the claims made by the exporting
producer, no arbitrary selection of transaction has
been made. In fact, as much as 70 % of the volume
of all transactions made by the exporting producer
was compared with up to 90 % of the operations
in the
made by
Community market. This is considered to be a
high degree of representativeness for the price-
undercutting calculation.

the Community

industry

Taking into account the exporting producer’s credit
notes to Community-based customers reflecting
this producer’s policy of price discounts,
the
resulting revised undercutting margins ranged from
0,5 to 36 % depending on the customer, the PSP-
product
type and the transaction. The average
undercutting was found to be 3,7 %.

3. Situation of the Community industry

The exporting producer claimed that the Commis-
sion had failed to establish injury since, during the
period under examination, the Community indus-
try’s production increased by 5 % and investments
were made to increase production capacity by
28 %. The exporting producer also claimed that
the Community
significantly
industry
increased its market share, which was only 4 % in
1988.

had

it

respect,

should be noted that

In this
the
Community industry started its PSP activity in the
Community in 1991. It is therefore normal that
certain economic indicators such as production,
production capacity, sales and market share have
overall shown a positive development since 1991. It
should also be noted that the volume of consump-
tion increased by 5 % during the period under
investigation and that the amount of investments
which were necessary to increase production
capacity were very limited. Furthermore, the invest-
igation has confirmed that the Community indus-
try’s profitability had been highly negative during
the whole period under investigation as a result of
its highly depressed sales prices.

4. Conclusion

(23) On the basis of the above, it was considered that
the exporting producer had not
supplied any
evidence demonstrating that the provisional find-
ings with respect to injury (recitals 24 to 45 of the
provisional duty Regulation) were not valid. On the
contrary, the findings made after the publication of
the provisional duty Regulation with respect
to
significant price
indicating that
export prices
undercutting had taken place, reinforce the provi-
sional findings which are therefore confirmed.

E. CAUSATION OF INJURY

1. Effect

dumped
of
Community industry

imports

on

the

(24)

There are only two suppliers on the Community
market. Whereas the Community industry is not
the Community
able to supply the whole of
demand, the exporting producer has a production
capacity in excess of Community demand. In addi-
tion, there are a few large users on the market who

L 255/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 9. 98

require a greater volume of PSP than can be deliv-
ered by the Community industry. Given this situ-
ation and the price policy practised by the
exporting producer,
the
Community industry faced particular difficulties in
price negotiations.

found that

it was

(25) As a matter of fact, large industrial users are obliged
to rely on the exporting producer for a certain
amount of their PSP needs. This leads to a situation
where there is basically no competition for these
volumes
in the Community market and the
exporting producer is able to obtain higher prices
for this part of Community consumption.

the downward pressure of

The above situation underlines the fact that the
true extent of
the
Community industry’s prices cannot be explained
by the relatively low average price undercutting
margins determined above. Rather the true extent
of the downward pressure is revealed if the deter-
mination of price undercutting is limited to that
part of the market for which competition existed
between the two suppliers. A price undercutting
margin on this basis is significantly higher than the
one determined on the basis of all imports.

(26) As a result, the exporting producer was able to
maintain and even increase its market
share.
Although the value of consumption decreased by
1 % from 1994 up to the end of the investigation
period, the exporting producer was able to increase
its share in the value of the market by 2 %, while
at the same time the Community industry’s share
decreased by 6 %.

(27) On this basis, it can be concluded that low-priced
dumped imports had caused the downward pres-
sure on the Community industry’s prices and had
therefore caused the Community industry’s profit
shortfall, thus material injury.

2. Competition from substitute products,

evolution of consumption

(28) According to the exporting producer, the Commis-
sion failed to take into account the fact that the
product concerned was a separate market within a
larger market for alternative polymers. The larger
market for alternative polymers had allegedly had a
significant influence on the demand and prices for
PSP, as users could easily switch from PSP to other
polymers when PSP prices rose above a certain
threshold. Certain PSP users claimed that
the
demand for polyurethane-based sealant, the main
PSP competitor, had allegedly increased its share of

the Community sealant market from 9 to 12 %
during the period under examination.

it was

products,

concluded

(29) Despite this alleged increase in consumption for
substitute
that
competition therefrom had had a very limited
impact, if any, on the situation of the Community
industry. Although consumption of polyurethane-
based sealant increased by 3 %, volume-wise PSP
consumption increased more. Moreover, substitute
products would only affect the consumption of PSP
if the latter’s price was increased above a certain
threshold. The decreasing level of PSP prices indi-
cated that this did not occur. Furthermore, the
switch from PSP to other polymer-based sealant
necessitates substantial investments, the recovery of
which is likely to cause a substantial increase in the
price of the sealant compounds using polymers
other than PSP.

(30)

(31)

(32)

The exporting producer questioned the provision-
ally established development of Community PSP-
consumption claiming that
the market showed
signs of steady growth from 1994 up to the end of
It was
the investigation period (March 1997).
further argued that
the
Community industry’s sales value in 1996 was the
result of a brief downturn in the construction
industry.

the loss of 20 % of

In this respect it should be noted that to claim that
there had been steady growth in PSP-consumption,
that there was competition from substitute products
and that
the decrease in sales made by the
Community industry was due to a brief downturn
in the construction industry is contradictory. In
actual fact, the investigation showed that the over-
capacity in the glass insulation industry, the main
market for PSP in the Community, had led to
slight down- and upturns in consumption, as the
evolution of consumption from 1994 to March
1997 indicates. However, it was considered that the
market conjuncture, being equal for all the oper-
ators in the market, should have had similar effects
on all of them.

The investigation has shown that this was not the
the
case. Despite the downturn in the sales of
Community industry in 1996, the exporting produ-
cer’s sales volume increased by 8 % and its sales
value by 6 % in 1996 compared to 1995, its market
share increased by 5 % in terms of volume and by
6 % in terms of value. These performances coin-
cided with a decrease in the Community industry’s
market share both in terms of volume (– 16 %)
and value (– 25 %).

17. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 255/5

(33) Contrary to the exporting producer’s statement, the
decrease of 20 % in the value of sales made by the
Community industry between 1994 and 1996 could
not be attributed to the downturn in the construc-
tion industry. The evolution of consumption was
the
positive between 1994 and 1996. Moreover,
investigation confirmed the findings set out
in
recital 34 of
the provisional duty Regulation,
namely that a major customer had not ordered any
PSP from the Community industry in 1996 and
preferred to rely entirely on low-priced supplies
from the exporting producer.

(34) Consequently, the Community industry’s share of
the Community market in 1996, both in terms of
volume and value, was at its lowest. Market share in
terms of volume recovered only at the end of the
investigation period, whereas, as a result of the
exporting producer’s pricing policy, at the end of
the investigation period as compared to 1994, 6 %
of the value of the market had been lost. In addi-
tion, considering that consumption increased by
the
5 % or 838 tonnes during that period,
exporting producer obtained the major part of the
new orders, namely around three-quarters.

3. Conclusion

The claims made by the exporting producer on the
cause of the material
injury to the Community
industry were not considered to be founded. On
the contrary,
the continued investigation has
revealed that price undercutting was more harmful
the price policy applied by the
because of
exporting producer
to Community-based users.
Therefore, in the absence of any new material argu-
ments in connection with the findings in recitals
47 to 61 of the provisional duty Regulation, the
provisional conclusion that high volumes of low-
priced dumped PSP had caused material injury to
the Community industry is confirmed and that any
possible negative effects that may have existed as a
result of changes in the consumption are not such
as to break the causal link.

the production of PSP in view, in particular, of the
investments made and the positive developments
expected in the Community market.

(37)

The investigation has shown that market condi-
tions were not sound during the period under
examination. Resale prices were lower than the
relative costs of production and the accumulation
losses could not be sustained inde-
of financial
finitely by the Community industry. In the present
case, despite its structural viability and competitive-
ness, the Community industry, being the minor
player in the Community market, would be in a
position to benefit from any improvement in the
market
situation only if effective competition
conditions were restored.

2. Consequences for employment

(38)

Importers related to the exporting producer also
argued that the Commission had failed to consider
the impact of imposing anti-dumping measures on
their business which was comparable to the
Community industry’s business.

(39) During the whole period under investigation it was
found that the number of people employed by the
Community industry who were directly involved in
the production and sale of PSP had decreased by
7 %. In the light of recitals 67 and 68 of the
provisional duty Regulation, it was concluded that
the consequences on employment of not taking
measures would not be confined solely to a reduc-
tion in direct employment but would also make a
considerable number of jobs uncertain in other
related businesses.

On the other hand it is recalled that the measures
proposed are not such as to close the Community
market to the exporting producer. Therefore it is
considered that
in related sales
employment
companies in the Community, which in any event
is lower than that of
the Community industry,
would not be unduly affected.

F. COMMUNITY INTEREST

3. Interest of Community users

1. Community industry

interested

the
parties
Some
Community producer was found to be competitive
and viable and that even if no anti-dumping meas-
ures were imposed, this producer would not stop

argued

that

(40)

The importers related to the exporting producer
claimed that users considered that the impact of
anti-dumping measures on their costs and prices
would be negative and that the fragile balance that
existed between PSP and substitute products would
be affected.

(35)

(36)

L 255/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 9. 98

(41)

The investigation has shown that the price level
above which users may be likely to switch from
PSP to alternative polymers is determined by the
following factors:
the most
adequate polymer for insulating glass; it is easily
workable and very reliable as a sealant for such
applications, the PSP layer which is necessary to
insulate glass requiring around 25 % less volume
than alternative products such as polyurethane.

technically PSP is

As a result, only if current PSP prices were
increased by more than 20 % is it
likely that
consumption of PSP would be affected.

(45) Among the comments received from users was one
which argued that the imposition of anti-dumping
duties would lead to an increase in their prices and
thus endanger their competitiveness not only in
the Community but also in the export markets
such as Asia. As far as the Community market is
concerned, it was claimed that anti-dumping duties
will put certain users in an advantageous position
compared to others, since anti-dumping duties will
affect more those who relied on higher supplies
from the exporting producer. This is particularly
true for the main user in the Community market.
Consequently,
it was claimed that competition
among users will be distorted.

(42) Moreover, as stated in recital 29 above, substantial
investments would be necessary to produce other
polymer-based sealant compounds
to
replace PSP and this would certainly cause an
increase in their resale price in the Community
market. Therefore, it is considered that the level of
the measures proposed is not such as to cause a
switch from PSP to other polymers.

in order

(43) As far as the impact of the anti-dumping duties on
the users’ activities is concerned, it was considered
that the negative impact of these measures should
be viewed in the light of the higher price level
prevailing in the Community market when it was
supplied by a single supplier, namely the exporting
producer.

On the one hand, it is not foreseeable that the
price level in the Community will increase by the
full amount of
the anti-dumping duty, as the
Community industry would also benefit from an
increase in its sales volume.

(46) As far as the first argument is concerned, it should
be recalled that anti-dumping duties cannot affect
the competitiveness of exports to third countries.
Indeed, anti-dumping duties are either not due
when the product in question is imported under
the inward processing regime or are reimbursed
when it is re-exported as such or incorporated into
another product. The fact that this would constitute
an additional administrative burden cannot be
considered as a valid argument against the imposi-
tion of anti-dumping duties.

As far as the dependence on imported PSP is
concerned, it is considered that the decision of a
user to rely more on one source of supply was
taken according to individual interest regardless of
any anti-dumping considerations. Therefore such
an individual decision cannot provide guidance for
assessing the general interest of users.

On the other hand, as indicated above, the possible
return to a monopoly situation in the Community
market, based on the experience gained since the
entry into the market of the Community producer,
would also have negative effects on sales prices.
Such a situation may be encountered again should
the Community industry be forced to leave this
market as a result of injurious dumping by the
exporting producer.

(47)

(44) On the basis of the above facts and considerations,
it is considered that, in spite of the imposition of
anti-dumping measures,
two
suppliers in the Community market would be
largely beneficial to users in the long term.

the presence of

the Community market

It was also claimed that the imposition of anti-
dumping duties could result in a product shortage
with the main supplier, the exporting producer,
retreating from the market or reverting to the sale
of the end product incorporating PSP. It is consid-
the first possibility seems extremely
ered that
improbable:
the
exporting producer’s largest market. As to the
the
second argument,
exporting producer might revert to the sale of the
end product independently from the imposition of
duties on PSP. However, there is no indication that
the exporting producer has sufficient production
capacity to supply the largest worldwide market,
namely the Community market, with PSP based
sealant mainly
insulation
intended for
applications.

seems possible that

glass

is

it

17. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 255/7

4. Conclusion

(48) As apart from the above assessed arguments and
claims, no new evidence and claims were received
in connection with the Community interest invest-
igation, it is confirmed that no compelling reasons
have been found which would indicate that it is not
in the Community interest
anti-
dumping measures in the present proceeding.

to impose

(53) Accordingly, injury elimination levels determined
on a PSP product-type basis were compared with
the selling prices of corresponding PSP product
types originating in the USA at
industrial user
level, taking due account of all discounts. The pos-
itive difference, expressed as a percentage of the cif,
net Community frontier value of the transactions
compared, was found to be 13,2 %.

G. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(49)

further

The definitive measures should be such as to
prevent
caused to the
injury being
Community industry by dumped imports from the
USA. The injury margins established with reference
to recitals 82 and 83 of the provisional duty Regu-
lation were thus re-calculated in the light of the
new findings concerning the exporting producer’s
resale prices in the Community market.

(50) With reference to recital 82 of the provisional duty
Regulation, it was still considered that the amount
of duty necessary to remove the effects of injurious
dumping should raise the prices of imports to a
level
at which the
to
Community industry would be able to cover its
costs of production and obtain a reasonable profit
on sales.

corresponding

one

(51)

(52)

the provisional

The exporting producer argued that
the target
profit of 9 % used in the injury elimination calcu-
lation at
stage had not been
adequately justified and that the calculations had
been based on an arbitrarily selected sample of
transactions which favoured the conclusion that the
exporting producer had been underselling. The
values used in some transactions had been under-
estimated, with the result
the Commission
arrived at an inflated injury margin.

that

It is considered that this minimum profit margin
permits the Community industry to cover its needs
when making long-term investments and enables it
to recover from the accumulation of losses in the
last few years. Moreover, this is a reasonable rate of
return which the Community industry could
expect in the absence of injurious dumping. Given
the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that
the target profit was too high and given that it was
far below the profit margin that
the exporting
producer considered as reasonable to apply when
constructing normal value in the USA, the target
profit of 9 % is confirmed. As far as the alleged
the
selection of sales transactions is concerned,
same argument has been put forward concerning
the determination of price undercutting and has
been answered in recital 19 above.

2. Level and form of the anti-dumping meas-

ures

(54)

Based on the above conclusions on dumping,
injury, causal link and Community interest, it was
considered what form and level of anti-dumping
measures would have to be taken in order to
injurious
remove the trade-distorting effects of
dumping and to restore effective competitive
conditions to the Community market.

1. Level of the anti-dumping measure

(55)

Since the injury margin determined was lower than
the dumping margin found,
in accordance with
Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the former was
used in order to determine the level of the meas-
ures.

2. Undertakings

(56) After

final disclosure was made,

the exporting
producer offered a price undertaking. This offer has
been examined and it was found that the price
increases offered in the price undertaking were not
such as
to remove the injury caused to the
Community industry and therefore did not meet
the requirements of Article 8(1) of the basic Regu-
lation. Moreover, it is considered that given the
the Community
duopolistic supply structure of
market, price undertakings are not appropriate.
Furthermore, PSP originating in the USA is
imported in a variety of types and packaging and is
also sold to Community-based customers under
different sales conditions which significantly affect
the import and resale prices. This renders the
monitoring of a price undertaking almost imprac-
tical and unmanageable.

Based on the foregoing, the Commission therefore
decided, after consultation, that the price under-
taking offered could not be accepted. The Commis-
sion has informed the exporting producer accord-
ingly.

3. Definitive anti-dumping duty

(57) On the above basis, definitive measures,

in the
form of an ad valorem duty of 13,2 %, should be
imposed on imports of PSPs originating in the
USA.

L 255/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 9. 98

(58)

H. COLLECTION OF

THE
DUTIES

PROVISIONAL

the

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins
found for the exporting producers and in the light
seriousness of
caused to the
of
injury
Community industry,
is considered necessary
it
that the amounts secured by way of provisional
anti-dumping duties for transactions involving the
product concerned should be definitively collected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Solid polysulphide polymers falling within CN code
ex 4002 99 90 (TARIC code 4002 99 90 * 19) are not
within the scope of this Regulation.

2.
For the purpose of this Regulation, the rate of duty
applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price
before duty shall be 13,2 %.

Article 2

The amount provisionally secured by Regulation (EC) No
617/98 shall be definitively collected unless it was secured
for imports of solid polysulphide polymers, in which case
it shall be released.

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed
on imports of liquid polysulphide polymers originating in
the United States of America. The product as described
falls within CN code ex 4002 99 90 (TARIC code
4002 99 90 * 11).

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 1998.

For the Council

The President

W. SCH(cid:154)SSEL